Have never used a blade. I have always had acne and other skin problems that would make it impractical, plus it was just what my parents introduced me to in adolescence. But definitely not wet.
I think that a conception of heroic morality (basically, whether or not to use TDT, or choosing between act and rule utilitarianism) may be at the heart of many of the choices to be cooperative/nice or not. Many people seem to assume that they should always play the hero, and those more virtuous ones who don’t seem to think that you would never be able to play the hero.
As an example, consider assassinating Hitler. It’s not clear how Hitler could reprise this—he is already killing people who disagree with him, and he is a single tyrant while you are an invisible individual. This does not apply, however, if you are in equal factions, say Fascists and Communists.
In the case of the Singularity, I’d say that most people don’t consider probability and very largepayoffs.
I think that the answer to this problem is that it will simply be neccesary for class oppression to be ended then.
Does Moldbug actually believe that?
It’s possible that we are forced to engage more with peopel we thhink are eivl.
I’m taking about a much worse scenario.
Already we have been able to keep culture and hope alive in the midst of near-genocidal wars. Excepting mistakes such as a UFAI taking seriously “survival at any cost”, I think that the risk of survival’s demands trashing human joy is greatly lowered since 1950 and is unlikely to return.
THe simulations look like they might have been developed using the tech from Half-Life 2, but with terrible quality animations. If the simulations were highly immersive, I might freak out because zombies. They also look less realistic than sequences seen in a number of popular violent video games (some of which offer considerable applications to apply utilitarian or unutilitarian choices.
Telling people with no exp. on violent video games to play Mass Effect all the way through, and record all their choices, and hesitations might be interesting for the cost.
One thing worth noting is that these all describe cases where if the sides took things seriously, they would act much more harshly and heroically. For example, there are very few people using either coercion or effective-altruism-like schema to save animals (and those who do have major scope insensitivity, or pick sympathetic victims).
In HPMOR, it also penetrates at least some thickness of cover, according to Moody, who also suggests that it does need significant mana. (How much mana? I’m getting the impression that Stupify is acceptable for Auror-level combat despite being castable by top first-years.)
It also cannot be countered. We don’t see much of countering in HPMOR, but we do see Susan try to counter an extremely powerful bully’s spell in the SPHEW.
IDK. Moody suggests that the spell might already be mildly homing or at least very easy to target.
Plus she still might carry secret ancient magic that could be taught to Harry or to someone else without Quirrel needing to.
And that could probably be done with appropriate False Memory Charm.
He’s got to have a time turner.
Potentially, although it would presumably raise huge alarms and might be impossible to stealth with. Meanwhile, I imagine that the traps are not readily bypassable.
I see it that both proponents and opponents tend to interpret or use it to mean “seriously, definedly bad” rather than the implied usage of “indicative of a problem”.
I guess that’s right.
Also, pseudoscientists very, very often seem to have either an agenda, or a desperate desire to escape epicureanism.
I would reccomend segmenting it from LW a bit.